elucidate - e·lu·ci·date - Make (something) clear; explain: "work that will help to elucidate this matter"; "they would not elucidate further".

Not going to lie, had to look that one up.............

It was signed into law, the implementation was delayed and then it was struck down.

Your initial question asked if same sex marriage was ever approved via legislation rather than by the courts. I gave several examples of which Maine was one. Had your question been "are there any states today that have legislative approved measures" the answer would have not included Maine.

In the context of your question my response was factual.

Yes, it's a swing state but also one with a large black population and deep Baptist roots.

No, but if you look at trends I think the vote is running against the current of public opinion which is moving in the other direction as a Nation.

The constitutional bans on same sex marriage (and even civil unions in NC) are really only going to slow down the inevitable.

Obama said it very well when he announced his position. His daughters have friends with gay parents, why should they be treated differently than anyone else?

-spence

Quite frankly, all branches of government should be out of marriage. Regardless if you support or oppose gay marriage, far too many legislative resources are being allocated to something that is the least of our national problems.

Instead of this "social" issue, let's require our elected officials to get focused on *political* issues such as our still struggling economy, a GDP that's floundering like a 12lb bluefish that just jumped in your kayak, an ever-looming catastrophe sewn into a bed of national debt... these are thing things that actually will affect every man, woman and child in this country in the near term.

Would Gay Marriage generate more money or less for the Government (Fed and or local)?
Would there be more tax $$’s lost/gained (different way to file taxes (married jointly) etc.)
Would “common law” marriage apply to same sex couples after a certain time frame in some states?
Can they get divorced?
If divorced, does alimony / child support apply?
Do they take the others name?

Would you send a card addressed to Mr. & Mr. Smith or Mrs. & Mrs. Smith?
Would a dude buy a hope chest for another dude?
Would one groom have bridesmaids and the other have grooms men?

Yep, this pretty much says it all.

-spence

Yes sir, it's paying dividends for Obama already...

Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by seven points in new national poll - NYPOST.com

Before anyone claims that Scott Rasmussen is biased, let's remember he correctly predicted the Obama rout in 2008.

That's a riot. Blacks hate it, they really really hate it, when bleeding heart liberals make this comparison. Blacks don't like it when you say "we let you peopl eget married, so we should let them".

who cares if there is marriage between man and man or woman and woman in todays world... I do not believe in it...so what...this is the 21st century

Regardless of if they like it or not, they're still not the majority effected. So, for the liberals, it's better to piss off the minority voting block and solidify support from the gay community. Let's face it, the minority vote isn't swinging to the GOP any time soon.

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections

Nope.

-spence

...which was also around in 2008

but lets not let facts get in the way of whining.

Johnny, I agree 100% that Obama's support of gay marriage isn't costing him any black votes. I was responding to Spence's claim (a common liberal claim) that gay marriage is analogous to civil rights for blacks. That's funny for 2 reasons. First, it was the Democrats who were opposed to Civil Rights for blacks. Second, blacks get deeply offended when liberal whites compare them, in this case, to homosexuals. If liberals cared as much about keeping blacks happy as they claim, they would stop making this comparison. Blacks really hate it.

You should really expand on this thought...I could use a good laugh.

Please do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure. But it won't make you laugh.

I would have assumed you knew a tiny bit of factual history. Now we all know different. Another case of Spence ideology trumping facts.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight."

Can you read Spence? The efforts to block the Civil Rights Act were led by Al Gore Sr, and Robert Byrd. Democrats. D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S. That same Robert Byrd who the d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t-s made president of the Senate, thus third in line for the presidency. Swell, isn't it?

In the heydey of Southern segregation, the vast majority of governors in those states were Democrats.

Fast forward a few years. Arkansas Gov Oral Faubus (a Democrat) was ordered by President Eisenhower (a Republican) to let black kids attend school. Gov Faubus ( a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t) ordered the National Guard to stop the black kids from going to school. President Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st airborne to ensure those kids got to school. Read the story of the "Little Rock Nine".

George Wallace, governor of Alabama, ran for President. Big-time segregationist. And a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t.

Lester Maddox. Governor of Georgia. Big-time segregationist who endorsed George Wallace when Wallace ran for President. Maddox was a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t.

Spence, you have shown here that you literally have no ability to process facts unless those facts fit your ideology.

Until now, i have never heard anyone, ever, deny that Democrats were primarily responsible for southern segregation. You are blinded, completely, by ideology. If Obama said that 2 plus 2 was 7, you would not have the wherewithal to disagree.

Are you laughing Spence? Are you? I'm not.

I'm not done with you yet.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From that link just above...when the Civil Rights Bill passed the Senate, the vote was 73-27. Of the 27 who were opposed, 21 were democrats, 6 were republicans.

The vote in the house was 289-126. Of the 126 reps who opposed, 91 were democrats, 31 were republicans.

Spence, based on what you said, I'm not sure if you can read or count. I'll make it simple. When I said that Democrats were primarily responsible for opposing the passage of the Civil Rights Act? I was 100% correct, you were 100% wrong.

Snack on that.

Here's a very important question Spence...do you still dispute my contention that the Democrats were primarily responsible for opposing Civil Rights legislation? Please respond directly...

You said you could use a good laugh. So, are you laughing? Or are you as embarassed as you should be?

:jester:

:rotf2:

:jump:

:laugha:

:lama:

:bs:

-spence

Rewriting questions about marriage equality - Video on msnbc.com


guess he didn't get the memo

Really. That's how you respond to irrefutable fact thats that show that you're completely ignorant aon a vital part of our recent history? You say mu numbers are B.S.? Do you have different numbers showing that Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act?

Whatever floats your boat, Spence. I guess you better laugh as much as you can between now and November. You won't be laughing much after that.

Son is pitching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When he's done, I look forward to you trying to explain why you have a shred of credibility left on this thread. You tell me why the Democrats weren't leading the opposition to the civil rights march. Hint - you can't do it by naming a few prominent democrats who were in favor of civil rights, because I didn't claim that zero democrats were pro-civil rights. What I said was, the vast majority of those blocking Civil Rights legislation back then, were Democrats. That's what I said. And after I posted the numbers, I cannot fathom how you can disagree.

I guess I just don't get this thread.I don't understand all these long winded replies.I already dumbed it down once but I guess I have to do it again:

OBAMA IS COURTING THE GAY COMMUNITY FOR VOTES.ITS CALLED PANDERING.Its that simple,nothing more and nothing less.

Your assertion was that it was "funny" for Democrats to make an analogy between civil rights and gay rights because it was "the Democrats who were opposed to civil rights for blacks".

This doesn't make any sense.

As you've wisely indicated (aka the preemptive back track :hihi:) not all Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Certainly so, the legislation was proposed by a Democratic President and passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.

Remember, Democrats in the south were originally advocates strong states rights and slavery as an economic necessity (i.e. at the time more conservative). This was the culture that persisted even as slavery was outlawed. The South's loyalty to their party kept many voting as Democrats until the Democratic party shifted further to the Left...and ultimately drove Southern Democrats to the Republican Party which is precisely why Southern states tend to vote Republican today.

Hell, perhaps the most vocal Democratic opponent to Civil Rights was Strom Thurmond...who switched parties and became a Republican in 1964.

Republicans did join ranks with Democrats and made the Civil Rights Act an example of bi-partisan legislation...back then...but we all know the Republican party has moved to the Right...characterized by Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Moral Majority and more recently the bastardization of even Ronald Reagan's legacy.

So I'm not sure what's all that funny about it. I guess it could be considered ironic, assuming you lacked a basic understanding of American history.

As for the black response, here's a pretty interesting take...

Is the black church guilty of spiritual hypocrisy in same-sex marriage debate? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

-spence

Spence, I didn't "backtrack" when I said some Democrats supported civil rights. I would never say anything so stupid as saying that zero democrats supportwed civil rights. Just because you but your foot in your mouth several times a day, don't assume everyone else wallows in ignorance too.

"ultimately drove Southern Democrats to the Republican Party which is precisely why Southern states tend to vote Republican today."

Correct. You finally got one right.

"Certainly so, the legislation was proposed by a Democratic President and passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. "

That's true, but midleading, and you know it. The Republicans were of course in the minority. But you keep dismissing the fact (gee, I wonder why) that a much larger percentage of Republicans voted for the bill, than Democrats. I'll repeat. Of the 27 Senators who voted against, 21 were Democrats. Of the 126 reps who voted against, 91 were Democrats. Talk about an inconvenient truth...for you, that is. You can't process facts that don't fit your agenda, even if those facts are 60 years old. Amazing.

Again, in typical liberal fashion, you assume blacks should support homosexuals because they too were discriminated against. Blacks don't see it that way, no matter how many times you look down your noses at them condescendingly, and smugly suggest otherwise.

"bi-partisan legislation...back then"

Ahhh. So you are implying that Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship anymore. Interesting. Spence, do me a favor, look back, and see who has been bi-oartisan with Supreme Court nominees, and which party is obstructionist? Republicans routinely confirm the most liberal justices nominated by Democrats (the voted to confirm Sotomayor and Ginsburg, for example). Remember what happened to Bush's nominee, Robert Bork. The Democrat refusal to confirm Bork was so partisan and unprecedented, it gave way to a new term, called "Borking". Bork, as an appellate judge, had never been overturned by a higher court. His confirmation was denied by Democrats. Sotomayor had been overturned many times, and she was confirmed. Interesting, if your mind isn't so closed off that you have to stick your head in the sand because it makes your side look reprehensible.

Again Spence, I know you want to believe that Democrats are always compromising, and that Republicans are always obstructing. If you could prove that, I'd support your assertion. But once again, you cannot.

Actually I gave a very clear and reasoned explanation.

Actually, the article points out that black leaders use the same biblical approach to condemn homosexuality as were used to promote slavery.

This is very interesting no?


Here you go again...taking something tangent to the conversation just to attempt a point nobody even asked you to make.

Sotomayor managed to get 9 Republican votes...and you're citing this as a bi-partisan accomplishment?

Wow.

As for real bi-partisan legislation, right now I don't believe it's possible unless perhaps it was related to national defense.

I never claimed democrats were always compromising.

-spence

Jesus effing christ, let em get married already.
Everyone can take the religious/bigot/whatever excuses why they can't and get stuffed.

Marriage is a sham in this country with the rate of divorce. Where's the 'religious' outrage over that?

18 years for me tomorrow.
Great years
no sham

Exemplary...I'm nearing 10. :btu:

-spence

Going on 7 years this June, no sham here.

20 Years for me on Wednesday....

that's a great #...congrats!...19 years for me..

This is the President's Etch-a-Sketch moment. Now that the race is one on one they will both reposition themselves in the general election.
To the advisors it is a simple math problem....though evolving....to do and say whatever is needed to defeat each other. Every campaign is full of flip flops and every term served is full of empty campaign promises.
It's all about how gullible the voters can be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are aware that the divorce rate has been steadily declining in this country and is currently at it's lowest level since 1970(albiet for a host of reasons) but you didn't mention any factors regarding the causes for the rate before declaring marriage a sham..

btw, if marriage is indeed a "sham", why would gay couples be so anxious to participate in a "sham"?

U.S. divorce rate declines, reason unclear
2012-03-17

By David Crary / The Associated Press
NEW YORK -- By the numbers, divorce just isn't what it used to be.

Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.

To the liberals who are making saints out of Obama and Biden for supporting gay marriage, here is #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney doing the same exact thing in 2009.

Video of the Day: #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney Endorsing Gay Marriage in 2009 - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic

No body here can really believe that OBAMA believes in gay marriges...U just do not change your mind over nite.....if he believed, why did he not mention that he was for gay marriges in 2008..2009..2010...2011

It is just a politcal ploy which I think has back fired...even some gays believe it is only a political move.

why not?

My position has changed through time. Young and dumb 10 years ago there is no way I would have thought it was right. Knowing one half of some very faithful lesbian couples that I worked with over the years has certainly changed my perspective on it.

You don't? 6-7 years ago, I was a liberal and felt like taxes should be higher.

JD, :btu: yup, increasing age and expeience can lead to knowledge, wisdom and common sense. :D

rirockhound:
Like U it took me years to understand the gay and lesbian rights movement. I have a few gay friends too... So be it.... and as I stated in an earlier post I still do not believe in man marrying man or woman marrying woman....but with goofy Biden making the statement Obama comes out for gay marriages of which is only to get the gay vote.

The sanctity of marriage is a sham, sorry, I forgot everything had to be spelled out for you.


The 2012 Statistical Abstract: Births, Deaths, Marriages, & Divorces

Scroll down to the bottom, tell me, how many marriages were there vs divorces?